Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

It was also brought out that the accused persons were influential and as such the villagers were afraid of giving evidence against them. When this witness was examined as P.W. 3 in the Sessions Court, he went back to some extent on what he had stated even in the Committing Court. He was allowed to be treated as hostile in the Sessions Court also and the prosecution in cross-examination put to him the statements he had made to the Police.

But he denied having made those statements. He even denied that he had told the Committing Magistrate that the accused were influential persons and as such the people of the village were afraid of giving evidence against them or that the 3rd accused Chinglen Singh was his friend. To Questions put on behalf of the accused persons, he gave obliging answers and said that Munal Singh had a Dao when he was talking with Bidhu Singh and that he saw Munal Singh holding the Dao.

This witness had no doubt spoken about a fight between Munal and Bidhu, which is not seen to the evidence given by P.Ws. 1, 4 and 5 in the Committing Court.

10. It may be mentioned here that the- accused persons were on bail when the Sessions Trial began. The first accused Bidhu Singh was, according to P.W. 1, an influential man of the village. P.W. 3 had said in the Committing Court that the accused were influential persons and as such the villagers were afraid of giving evidence against them. When the Sessions trial began and the prosecution found that P, W. 1 went back completely on his evidence in the Committing Court and that even P.W. 2 in his examination-in-chief did not stick to the story given by him in the Committing Court, the prosecution applied for cancellation of bail on the ground that the accused per- , sons were influential and had already gained over some witnesses and that if they were allowed to remain at large they would further tamper with the witnesses, The Sessions Judge thereupon cancelled the bail. The accused took the matter to the Court of the Judicial Commissioner and my learned predecessor refused to grant bail to Bidhu Singh and Rajmani, accused 1 and 2, but allowed to the 3rd accused as he was only a young boy and could not be expected to tamper with evidence. It was in these circumstances that the trial went on before the Sessions Court.

The evidence of P.W. 3 Ibotombi Singh in the Committing Court where he was examined as P.W, 2 will not support the prosecution. But that evidence shqwed that the accused persons were influential and that the people in the village were afraid of giving evidence against them. It gives us the clue why the P.Ws. were all going back on the statements given by them to the Police and the evidence given by them in the Committing Court. In fact, the accused were on bail at the time and had every opportunity to tamper with the evidence if they so chose.

27. From the evidence discussed above, there can be little doubt that the prosecution case that while Munal Singh and his party were ploughing the land, accused 1 to 3 went to the place, accused 1 armed with a Dao. and accused 2 and 3 with sticks, that there was an altercation between Munal Singh and Bidhu Singh and that accused 1 dealt the blow with the Dao on the fore-head of Munal' causing the bleeding injury and that Munal Singh fell down. It is also quite possible that there was a scuffle between Bidhu Singh and Munal Singh before the blow was dealt. The learned Sessions Judge certainly failed to consider the evidence on record before he came to the conclusion that the prosecution case has not been proved. Courts are not so helpless when prosecution evidence is tampered with by the defence and it is for helping the Courts to arrive at the truth and for doing justice that we have Section 288 in the Criminal Procedure Code. The very attempt on the part of the defence to tamper with the prosecution evidence in the Sessions Court which has been proved in this case beyond any doubt, in a way indicated that the evidence given by the P.Ws. in the Committing Court contained the true version of the incident. If those witnesses were speaking falsehood before the Committing Magistrate then the attempt on the part of the defence would not have been to tamper with them, but to establish the falsehood by a thorough cross-examination of the witnesses. What the defence did in this case was to make the witnesses state in the Sessions Court whatever the defence wanted them to say. It is necessary to put down such tactics on the part of the accused persons with a firm hand in the interests of proper administration of justice. I cannot help remarking that the accused persons were enabled to tamper with the prosecution evidence as a result of the improper exercise of his discretion -by the Magistrate in allowing them bail when there was a prima facie case against them showing that a serious offence Under Section 302 IPC had been committed and particularly when W. Ibotombi Singh (P.W. 2 before him) had deposed before the Magistrate that the accused were influential persons and that the villagers wore afraid of giving evidence against them.